GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-06 > 1212433694


From: "adam bradford" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Iberian S116+
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:08:14 -0400
References: <00b301c8c4d1$46922150$6400a8c0@Ken1><ea3bd9560806021112r2db827b6r21386b3f96da2c55@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ea3bd9560806021112r2db827b6r21386b3f96da2c55@mail.gmail.com>


The whole point (and beauty) of haplogroup age estimates is that they are
independent of the archaeological record. There shouldn't be any burden on
an age estimate to match up with what is believed about the archaeological
record. I might add that what we generally refer to as the archaeological
record is not actually evidence, but rather evidence combined with an
interpretative overlay. Ken's estimate of S116 age does not actually
challenge the evidence, but it certainly challenges the interpretive
overlay.

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:12 PM, David Faux <> wrote:

> Ken:
>
> Other than your calculations, what evidence do you have that S116 is
> "young". I noted in another forum that this rush to alter the ages of
> haplogroups such as U106 and U152 is precipitous and unwarranted. The
> Swiss
> Lake Villages have a continuous line of settlement from the Mesolithic to
> La
> Tene without any discontinuity. There are dates obtained via
> dendochronology. It doesn't get much better than this. I can almost
> guarantee you that some form of S116 has been there all these years and
> before that somewhere around the Rhone delta. I maintain that there is no
> reason to assume that the current hotspt of U152, the Swiss Lakes, where
> there is very high diversity of haplotypes, has not included U152 since
> Mesolithic times and perhaps the Upper Paleolithic. There is nothing in
> the
> ground that could persuade me otherwise.
>
> I applaud your efforts to offer another line of evidence but unless you
> multiply your calculations by a factor of 3 they simply do no mesh with
> anything else in the universe - but you could be right - but there needs to
> be confirmatory evidence since the archaeological record does not show the
> discontinuity you propose for the Bronze Age - the time (or even more
> recent) your are suggesting for the arrival of S116 in Portugal.
>
> David K. Faux.
>
>
> On 6/2/08, Ken Nordtvedt <> wrote:
> >
> > Someone from the M269+ North/South clade with 14 at 437, 18 at 448, and
> 10
> > at H4 indicated he was found S116+
> >
> > Any others? I think this significant because Iberia shows many of this
> > clade, and S116+ is such a young SNP.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the
> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> >
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>


This thread: